Most overpaid sports?
Discussion
Considering the following factors:
Time spent doing the actual thing they get paid for (so visiting sick kids in hospitals doesn't count)
Skill involved
Risks faced
Earning potential i.e. a golfer may win a few hundred K for winning a tournament but he has to come first in that tournament, same for a snooker player, unlike a footballer on a salary.
I'm going with baseball. Over the course of a three hour game they must spend, what, maybe 5 minutes actually doing something other than standing around?
Time spent doing the actual thing they get paid for (so visiting sick kids in hospitals doesn't count)
Skill involved
Risks faced
Earning potential i.e. a golfer may win a few hundred K for winning a tournament but he has to come first in that tournament, same for a snooker player, unlike a footballer on a salary.
I'm going with baseball. Over the course of a three hour game they must spend, what, maybe 5 minutes actually doing something other than standing around?
I just found an interesting stat on the NFL: there is, on average, only ELEVEN minutes of actual play in an hour long game. ELEVEN minutes, and even then they have separate teams within the teams that play offence and defence so you can half that again! So your average NFL player plays for around 6 minutes a game. SIX! 
Blib said:
AdamIndy said:
Surely it has to be football.
Nope. See above.If you want to divide his $29,000,000 by the minutes he played.....it works out at £23,500 per game, and when I say per game that's my estimate of 5 minutes per game.
£23,500 for every 5 minutes playing a game that involves nothing more than the threat of bruise from a stray ball every once in a while.
dave_s13 said:
I won't be getting the violin out for him like but it's not that easy to get there, and stay there.
Yep, fair points, but he was still overpaid for what he did, plus if you ask any professional sportsperson if they'd rather have had a regular 9 to 5 than a career in their chosen sport, I reckon you'd be hard pushed to find one that would take the 9 to 5.Contribution to society?
Level of "graft"?
Level of skill? I would certainly say something like darts, where the situation never changes and "training" is exactly the same as the "real thing", is a long way removed from something like football where the opposition is doing everything they can to stop you winning and no matter how hard you train it will never replicate an actual game.
Level of "graft"?
Level of skill? I would certainly say something like darts, where the situation never changes and "training" is exactly the same as the "real thing", is a long way removed from something like football where the opposition is doing everything they can to stop you winning and no matter how hard you train it will never replicate an actual game.
MarshPhantom said:
How do you know how much he was paid?
Not all footballers are on good money, it's a short career and you'll be very lucky to ever play for a big team.
I don't need to know his exact wage to know he was overpaid: http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/premie...Not all footballers are on good money, it's a short career and you'll be very lucky to ever play for a big team.
sidicks said:
Centurion07 said:
Contribution to society?
Level of "graft"?
Level of skill? I would certainly say something like darts, where the situation never changes and "training" is exactly the same as the "real thing", is a long way removed from something like football where the opposition is doing everything they can to stop you winning and no matter how hard you train it will never replicate an actual game.
Those seem to be very vague and subjective metrics.Level of "graft"?
Level of skill? I would certainly say something like darts, where the situation never changes and "training" is exactly the same as the "real thing", is a long way removed from something like football where the opposition is doing everything they can to stop you winning and no matter how hard you train it will never replicate an actual game.
Fact is, in a free market, someone is 'worth' whatever someone else is prepared to pay them!
sidicks said:
BoRED S2upid said:
Murray £2m a year from Adidas, £1m from Highland spring water. Getting paid while your not even playing!
£15m over 4 years for Under Armour.Fact is, they are paying that because they think they will get back (much) more in profits, so definitely 'worth it'.
sidicks said:
Well, if top tennis players aren't that skilful then it would be say for anyone to replicate what they do and compete for the massive prize money on offer!!
You're missing the point; it's not just the skill involved as much as it is the time and physical effort expended in the participation of a particular sport.sidicks said:
Centurion07 said:
But for what he actually DOES, when compared with some other sports, the direct earnings from tennis are out of proportion.
You keep saying that but with no justification!How much training has he done to get to where he is today? To a level where he is in the top 5 in the world..
Running around a tennis court for say, 2 hours at a time with very little risk is way easier than, for example, ice hockey where injury risk is much, much higher. Baseball, where injury risk again is tiny, is even easier as each player only actually plays around 5 minutes per game.
sidicks said:
Why is risk the most relevant factor for determining what someone is 'worth'?
Surely it's a combination of numerous factors, which goes back to the point i made earlier. Someone is 'worth' whatever someone else is prepared to pay them. And the reasons these people are paid what they are is that they can do things that the rest of the world cannot and people want to see that!
I never said it was the most relevant!Surely it's a combination of numerous factors, which goes back to the point i made earlier. Someone is 'worth' whatever someone else is prepared to pay them. And the reasons these people are paid what they are is that they can do things that the rest of the world cannot and people want to see that!
If you had two identical sports apart from the risk factor, would you think it fair they both paid the same? Of course you wouldn't. The same as if you had two identical sports except one has to be played for 2 hours versus the 5 minutes of the other, would it be fair if they paid the same? No. That's the point of the question; when you take into consideration all the factors of any given sport, which do you think is overpaid when compared to another sport?
It has nothing to do with 'market value' and "what they're worth", it's about how "hard" their chosen sport is based on the factors I mentioned in the OP.
sidicks said:
So why do't those stupid ice hockey players give up ice hockey and earn more money doing 'easy' things like playing tennis or baseball?!
Too embarrassing I would imagine.Are you really this dense? Try this...
Risk factor on a scale of 1 to 10:
Tennis 2
Baseball 3
Soccer 5
Boxing 10
Tour de France 7
Time spent playing the sport on a scale of 1 to 10:
Tennis 5
Baseball 1
Soccer 3
Boxing 4
Tour de France 10
Feel free to grade your chosen sport in that manner and post it up.
sidicks said:
Feel free to focus on two aspects and ignore all the others that go into making a professional sportsman..!
OK, last try; feel free to grade any sports you like, using any measures you like, on a scale of 1 to 10, then post the one you think is overpaid compared to the others. 
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff